(08-10-2021 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think it will be hard to do a 40 team superleague. I do think the power conferences (whoever those are at the time) will pull away from the NCAA and may bring some additional schools with them. But 55 to 90 is a more likely number than 40.

I agree with this analysis. I have never believed that we would get to an NFL style 30-40 teams. I think in the end what we will see will be closer to 60-80 schools that separate from the current 130 FBS schools to create a new level of college football.

(08-10-2021 01:55 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 12:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't buy the superleague occurring at all. Not that nothing is impossible without enough money being thrown at various parties, but I don't have this Armageddon view of the overall structures of the conferences because culture *does* matter.

Disagree. You're going to see NFL Lite. College kids will be getting compensated - either directly thru salary or thru endorsement deals on the side. It changes the nature of the sport. They're professionals and it's time we recognize this reality so that everyone can get on with their lives. Fvck the universities for pretending college athletics is something different than it actually is.

Two mega conferences controlled by ESPN and FOX. It will be interesting to see how many brands will fall by the wayside as this unfolds. So far, Miami and Nebraska have been pretty well cannibalized thru mergers. Michigan and Wisconsin won't be far off.

(08-10-2021 11:28 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  Been thinking through this -

it really makes no sense to cut large parts of the country out of the college sports/college football system. There may not be a lot of Kansas State or Baylor fans, but they are out there and someone should make money off of them.

What does make sense, as an endgame:

Is ESPN trying to have their own proprietary version of the NFL?

The top 40 or so schools break off and form their own non-NCAA organization and simply play each other every year, culminating in an NFL style playoff?

This would mean no one is safe, including some B1G schools (Northwestern, Rutgers).

Schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, USC, UCLA, Oregon, maybe Arizona (but not ASU) join together in some sort of super conference - pull out of NCAA and split HUGE amounts of money as these will be the beyond Div1 football programs.

This would mean that after those 40 or so teams, the rest of the P5 are back with the G5 schools playing one another in what essentially becomes Division II even if its not labeled as such.

I would take 64 teams.

(08-10-2021 02:56 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think it will be hard to do a 40 team superleague. I do think the power conferences (whoever those are at the time) will pull away from the NCAA and may bring some additional schools with them. But 55 to 90 is a more likely number than 40.

I agree with this analysis. I have never believed that we would get to an NFL style 30-40 teams. I think in the end what we will see will be closer to 60-80 schools that separate from the current 130 FBS schools to create a new level of college football.

No.

If anything FBS will get to a point where it splits off of D1 in all sports.

The smaller the grouping the less likely a split becomes since there will be too many left out.

No, the system has been pretty much the way it is since the beginning for a reason -> the top programs already are essentially their own super league.

(08-10-2021 12:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't buy the superleague occurring at all. Not that nothing is impossible without enough money being thrown at various parties, but I don't have this Armageddon view of the overall structures of the conferences because culture *does* matter.

The Big Ten, for instance, simply isn't looking at conference realignment as a completely football-focused exercise. They have never done so and they never will. Even if they could take schools from the ACC, for instance, its main targets would be the likes of UVA, UNC and/or Georgia Tech as opposed to Florida State and Clemson. From a pure football perspective, the Big Ten would probably be better off staying how it is than taking the other AAU schools that are conceivably available other than USC from the Pac-12 (and of course ND that isn't an AAU school). It's simply a different culture compared to the SEC... and that's OK! In fact, that's what makes the Big Ten schools valuable as overall *institutions* (not just football programs) is that the conference is NOT the SEC. No one in the Big Ten *wants* to be like the SEC.

I pointed this out before, but Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft are all tech companies that make a ton of money... but they have *very* different cultures and make money in different ways. That's how I see at least the comparison between the Big Ten and SEC as the top two: they have football power in common (just like the aforementioned companies all have tech in common), but once you get past that, they're simply very different cultures in terms of how they approach things. Now, if you want to say that the Big Ten is hypocritical and they're just as money-grubbing as the SEC, then you won't get an argument from me, but believe me that the veneer of academic respectability truly is quite important to the Big Ten members.

There is all the difference in the world between an elite college, a college, a university, and a national research university.

National research universities are focused on their graduate students and research more so than undergraduate education. Every B10 school fits this mold so do Pitt, UNC, UVa, Duke, VT, NC State, Florida, GT, Emory, Georgia, Texas, TAMU, Tennessee, Vandy, Mizzou, Kansas, ISU, LSU, Colorado, Colorado State, Arizona, Utah, all four schools in California, and Washington. MIT, Cal Tech, Tufts, Mayo, Rennslar, SUNY Buffalo and Stoney, Rice, Case Western, plus UC SD, UC SF, UC Irvine, etc., There are about 80-90 of these most are in the AAU, most are ranked higher than 100 in ARWU unless they are very, very small.

To me this is the key difference - the size, scope, and role of graduate education. Most sports fans are never going to understand this, especially if they do not have an advanced degree.

There is no "end game"

(08-10-2021 12:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't buy the superleague occurring at all. Not that nothing is impossible without enough money being thrown at various parties, but I don't have this Armageddon view of the overall structures of the conferences because culture *does* matter.

I'm totally with Frank on this matter for two key reasons.

1. For a Super League to happen, X number of schools would have to view themselves as EQUALS, sit down and draw it up. They don't see themselves as equals, they never will.

It's more likely you'd see TWO "rival super leagues" from the Big Ten and SEC; B1G takes AAU members, SEC takes other ACC properties. Big Ten annexes the Pac-12 and Kansas; So the SEC responds; and then detente: Match numbers, no poaching, work together on TV deals -- like American/National League did in baseball for a century.


2. Guarantee games. The P5 plays over 67% of their games AT HOME. They win 65% of their total games. You pay a couple small programs to play at your stadium, you beat them so a 3-5 conference record makes you 6-6 overall.

But if you break off into a super league and kick everyone else out and only play the group, you HAVE to play 50% of your games on the road (losing gate receipts). Your 3-5 conference record turns into 4-8 overall instead of 6-6 overall.

Teams that are usually 5-7 will find themselves at 1-11, and that makes booster money dry up. It's never made ANY sense to kick out the G5 schools. You need someone to beat.

I would agree that Big Ten and PAC schools are not ready to drop their current conferences just to be affiliated with the #1 football conference in the country. There needs to be more reasons than that to drop centuries long affiliations.

A while back the Ivy league schools had their own choice to make. In the end, they all decided to de-emphasize football. Many FBS schools soon will have their own choice to make. Maybe its too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Maybe there is just too much money to be made. It will be interesting how it all plays out.

(08-10-2021 04:27 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 12:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don't buy the superleague occurring at all. Not that nothing is impossible without enough money being thrown at various parties, but I don't have this Armageddon view of the overall structures of the conferences because culture *does* matter.

I'm totally with Frank on this matter for two key reasons.

1. For a Super League to happen, X number of schools would have to view themselves as EQUALS, sit down and draw it up. They don't see themselves as equals, they never will.

It's more likely you'd see TWO "rival super leagues" from the Big Ten and SEC; B1G takes AAU members, SEC takes other ACC properties. Big Ten annexes the Pac-12 and Kansas; So the SEC responds; and then detente: Match numbers, no poaching, work together on TV deals -- like American/National League did in baseball for a century.


2. Guarantee games. The P5 plays over 67% of their games AT HOME. They win 65% of their total games. You pay a couple small programs to play at your stadium, you beat them so a 3-5 conference record makes you 6-6 overall.

But if you break off into a super league and kick everyone else out and only play the group, you HAVE to play 50% of your games on the road (losing gate receipts). Your 3-5 conference record turns into 4-8 overall instead of 6-6 overall.

Teams that are usually 5-7 will find themselves at 1-11, and that makes booster money dry up. It's never made ANY sense to kick out the G5 schools. You need someone to beat.

Such an important point. Schools like Alabama regularly play 8 home games. And picks and choose who they play, when they play, and where they play

The only way a Super League works is if the schools give up a great deal of their schedule control to the League. Otherwise, it isn't a Super League - it is a scheduling alliance.

(08-10-2021 03:21 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 02:56 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think it will be hard to do a 40 team superleague. I do think the power conferences (whoever those are at the time) will pull away from the NCAA and may bring some additional schools with them. But 55 to 90 is a more likely number than 40.

I agree with this analysis. I have never believed that we would get to an NFL style 30-40 teams. I think in the end what we will see will be closer to 60-80 schools that separate from the current 130 FBS schools to create a new level of college football.

No.

If anything FBS will get to a point where it splits off of D1 in all sports.

The smaller the grouping the less likely a split becomes since there will be too many left out.

This is pretty much where I see things are headed, a rupture within D-I where FBS(and FBS only) will go their own way in everything and the rest of the NCAA membership gets relegated to being covered sparsely nationally.

I think one super league is a possibility. I think 2 super leagues who match their champs in a World Series type match up is a possibility too. I think anything like this is a decade away though.

I mean, isn't the proposed 12-team playoff effectively the college football equivalent of the Champions League? The deeper leagues are going to get more bites at the apple.

(08-10-2021 04:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I mean, isn't the proposed 12-team playoff effectively the college football equivalent of the Champions League? The deeper leagues are going to get more bites at the apple.

In a way you’re correct. The 1 and 2 super league theories are essentially the same the thing too, just with the money concentrated among fewer teams.

CFB would lose too many viewers to only have a 40 team division so they will keep 72-80 teams but have a significant pay difference between the SEC/B1G and the remaining 2-3 leagues to try and keep the viewers of the teams that have been left behind.

Maybe the remaining 2-3 leagues can be creative to cut the revenue difference by being willing to play Tues/Wed/Thurs & Fri nights for live content for FOX and ESPN.

The end game are the actions that increase revenues…it’s not a destination, it’s a journey.

For the ACC, the next actions should be…
1) Get the ACCN on Comcast
2) Determine what ESPN needs in order to increase payouts during the look-in window
3) Keep working on ND to bundle it’s media rights / join in football
4) Ensure that desirable brands (FSU, Clemson, UNC, ND, UVA, etc.) have reasons to stay in the ACC

Reducing the number of power teams to 40 won’t stop the money chase…so that can’t be the end game.

(08-10-2021 12:33 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think it will be hard to do a 40 team superleague. I do think the power conferences (whoever those are at the time) will pull away from the NCAA and may bring some additional schools with them. But 55 to 90 is a more likely number than 40.

I do understand those who want 40 or 48 for a split.

I'm not getting the idea of 90. There is a gradation within the G5 rather than a clear cut line like there is between the SEC and XII moving forward or the B1G to ACC. ...

The idea of 90 is threefold ...

1) the "big fish" schools have always padded their W-L schedules by beating up 'formally equal' schools with fewer resources than themselves. 90 allows conferences to be structured so that continues.

2) the "little fish" completes the regional coverage of the country, acting as extension sweeper brooms to bring in viewers who would tune out of a "big fish only" league because they aren't directly interested in any of the big fish.

3) 90 members (possibly plus an additional set of Oympic Sports Only members) allows for a much stronger combination of National Championship basketball tournament and regular basketball season ... scaling the championship back to 48, top 16 bye into the second round, autobids for regular season and conference tournament championships, and you can have a March Madness without the W-L percentage to be on the bubble being so ridiculously low that the regular season is a joke.

I’m in the camp that this “end game” stuff is nothing more than internet fantasy for a bunch of blowhard t-shirt fans of certain schools. Let’s think about this for a minute—- what does “breaking away” even mean? Do people honestly thing you are are going to have 32-40 team division and the folks that did not make the cut no longer have fans, are broadcast on TV or have a university to support it? You guys think, for example, that if NC State did not make the cut all their alums would throw away their loyalties and back UNC? There would still be a demand for coverage of those outside the 32-40. They would still field teams and they would still get talent.

So if you create this super league around football: what happens in 20 years when football wanes in popularity? HS participation is dropping. There might need to be rule changes to make the game safer which could bring more parity.

Some of the biggest basketball brands are at the bottom of the P5 (UK, Cuse, Duke, Kansas) and others like Gonzaga and UConn don't play in the P5.

With this if the SEC wants to create a regional superconference they can still breakaway but will they dominate the viewers outside their footprint?

No.